PDA

View Full Version : Wounded Soldier Charged For Damaged Body Armor



He219
02-08-2006, 12:36 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/militaryphotosnet/more/823cd1e5.jpg
** FILE ** First Lt. William Eddie Rebrook IV, left, takes cover near the ancient cemetery during a gun battle with insurgents in Najaf, Iraq, in this, Aug. 21, 2004 file photo. Redbrook who was injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm. (AP Photo/Jim MacMillan, File)

Wounded Soldier Charged For Damaged Body Armor (http://www.nbc5.com/news/6832628/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=nationalnews)
UPDATED: 7:32 am CST February 8, 2006

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.

First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months -- all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard.

"I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday's edition. "They took it off me and burned it."

Rebrook's story spurred action Tuesday from U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va

"I've been in touch with his family, and I've already written (Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) to request that they immediately refund his money and review this horrendous policy," said Rockefeller, who is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "I'm shocked that he has been treated this way by our military."

Byrd questioned Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing in Washington.

"How can it be that the Defense Department, which is requesting $439 billion in this budget, has to resort to dunning a wounded soldier for $700 to replace a piece of body armor?" Byrd asked.

Schoomaker called Rebrook's story unusual and promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it."

Rockefeller said he first met Rebrook when he was an ROTC cadet at George Washington High School in Charleston and later nominated him to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where he graduated with honors. Rebrook then spent four years on active duty, including six months in Iraq.

Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was angry when she learned about the $700 bill. Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said.

"He couldn't get out of the Army until he paid it and he had to pay cash," Drumheler said. "My son loved the Army and was proud of serving his country. For any soldier to be treated like this is outrageous."

Rebrook was standing in the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle when a roadside bomb exploded Jan. 11, 2005. The explosion fractured his arm and severed an artery. A Black Hawk helicopter airlifted him to a combat support hospital in Baghdad. He was later flown to a hospital in Germany before being transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

His arm never completely recovered despite seven operations. He still has range of motion problems and pain.

After eight months at Fort Hood, Texas, he gathered up his gear to leave. Things went smoothly until officers asked him for his missing body armor. In the past, the Army allowed to soldiers to write memos, explaining the loss and destruction of gear but a new policy requires documentation from the field.

Rebrook said he tried to get a battalion commander to sign a waiver, but the officer declined. He was told he would have to supply statements from witnesses to verify the body armor was taken from him and burned.

"First Cavalry Division leadership is going to do everything to ensure this issue is brought to a conclusion that is both in line with procedures that apply to all its soldiers and in the best interest of our veterans who have served so proudly and honorably in Iraq," Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, the division's spokesman at Fort Hood, told the Killeen (Texas) Daily Herald for Wednesday's edition.

Bleichwehl said soldiers are not held financially responsible for any equipment lost, damaged or destroyed in combat operations.

Rebrook's story has prompted donations from residents. A local radio station raised $700 within 90 minutes Tuesday, and one woman dropped off a $200 check by his mother's home, said Rebrook's stepfather, Charles Drumheler.

"I thought that was pretty nice that people care," Charles Drumheler said.

Rebrook's father, Ed Rebrook, a Charleston lawyer, said while the donations were appreciated, his son did not plan to accept them.

Greek soldier
02-08-2006, 12:40 PM
Unbelievable!! Body armour is for protection, I think... Now what? They will charge every wounded soldier for destroying his armour? Unless I miss important feedback

:( :(

PS: Death I guess is cheaper than the production cost of a body armour *sarcasm*. Hope the soldier will be fine.

MakeWar87
02-08-2006, 12:43 PM
Repost happened yesterday

Team Uncool
02-08-2006, 01:13 PM
some of us aren't able to check it out everyday, so what if it's a repost. Thanks for posting it again.

AlexNenadic
02-08-2006, 01:24 PM
Unbelievable!! Body armour is for protection, I think... Now what? They will charge every wounded soldier for destroying his armour? Unless I miss important feedback

:( :(

PS: Death I guess is cheaper than the production cost of a body armour *sarcasm*. Hope the soldier will be fine.

You did miss something, this is purely a paperwork screw up. If his unit's supply officer in Iraq had documented the destruction of his body armor, then no one would have been bothering him with this. You can't go up to supply and say "yeah.... about that body armor.... I don't have it anymore" without any official proof, because it looks like theft. Although it should be obvious to anyone that he's telling the truth, just by his injuries.

So its not like the Army is trying to take money from soldiers whose body armor was damaged or subsequently destroyed if they know this had in fact occured. In his case the event is not documented, so as far as they know he sold it on ebay.

Yeah its a bunch of bureaucratical bull****, but thats how supply works in the US Army.

Greek soldier
02-08-2006, 01:28 PM
AlexNenadic, it is very strange that he wasn't documented. And AFAIK, the Medics do report wounded soldiers... (even though I have not prior military experience.)

Gianni7476
02-08-2006, 01:55 PM
When I doing military service (not US), it was like this: you could basically destroy your gear and you got it replaced, no questions asked, as long as you still had the leftovers, but lose it and you had to pay it. It is obviously the same in other armies?!

saigonsmuggler
02-08-2006, 03:10 PM
What's surprising is that his battalion commander refusing to sign the waver. He must have known about the combat injuries?

mattnwnc03
02-08-2006, 03:12 PM
you got to be fu#%N kiddin me! and they wonder why recruitment is down .

Omaha
02-08-2006, 03:23 PM
You did miss something, this is purely a paperwork screw up. If his unit's supply officer in Iraq had documented the destruction of his body armor, then no one would have been bothering him with this. You can't go up to supply and say "yeah.... about that body armor.... I don't have it anymore" without any official proof, because it looks like theft. Although it should be obvious to anyone that he's telling the truth, just by his injuries.

So its not like the Army is trying to take money from soldiers whose body armor was damaged or subsequently destroyed if they know this had in fact occured. In his case the event is not documented, so as far as they know he sold it on ebay.

Yeah its a bunch of bureaucratical bull****, but thats how supply works in the US Army.

Exactly. End of story.

ElHombre
02-08-2006, 03:47 PM
What's surprising is that his battalion commander refusing to sign the waver. He must have known about the combat injuries?

an interesting point indeed.

i'll repost this from the other thread:

update: a liberal blog got wind of this and set up a donation drive with the help of the guy's local paper. they raised $5,000 in two hours and will be getting it to him.

detail's here (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-raised-5000-for-body-armor-we-more.html)

AlexNenadic
02-08-2006, 04:03 PM
Exactly. End of story.

Right, I was pointing out that this is a case of bureaucracy in action. The Army is not intentionally trying to screw him over, its more of a byproduct of their oversight.

Whoami88
02-08-2006, 04:10 PM
Ugh, thats why I try to stay away from the Army, to bureaucratic


Go Marines!!! lol

lt tahoe
02-08-2006, 04:52 PM
Riiight....the difference is, the Marines have to pinch every penny, and so would have charged him just to balance the books. Same result.

The problem here is the new system; used to be a report of survey would find him not liable and he'd be free to go; now there are different requirements.

AlexNenadic
02-08-2006, 05:29 PM
Ugh, thats why I try to stay away from the Army, to bureaucratic

Go Marines!!! lol

Not so fast. A wounded Marine in Iraq was almost charged for his missing coveralls, which had to be cut away. That is until his CO went down to have a chat with the supply people. The incident was posted on tank-net by one of his NCOs.

He219
02-08-2006, 06:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/militaryphotosnet/more/f0d8e512.jpg

U.S. Army First Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston, W.Va., shown in an undated photo provided by his family, stands next to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle during his recent service in Iraq. Rebrook, who was injured in Iraq, says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm. He had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months, all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard. (AP Photo/Family Photo)
:cantbeli:

Omaha
02-08-2006, 06:38 PM
Wow, ain't that neat. Over a year ago? Didn't think it was THAT bad.

Maybe a little more than a simple accidental error.

Beppo
02-08-2006, 09:06 PM
Typical Army bullcrap, but what's not typical is how stupidly they decided to handle the situation. That battalion commander must be a huge f*cking prick to not just sign it off, or else there's a lot more to this story we're not aware of.

ReggayMC
02-08-2006, 10:16 PM
WOW. That is so stupid. :-*$




Red=Army
Blue=Lt. Eddie Rebrook

mi35d
02-08-2006, 11:16 PM
The supply system gets ripped off on a constant basis. As anyone who has been in logistics for any length of time and they'll tell you stories all night.

With all his medical care the guy hasn't seen or been a part of his unit since his injury. The chain of posession on his gear has probably run through a dozen hands so at some point the system is trying to get a hold of the gear. It happens.

How many times have you looked on E-Bay and seen gear for sale that should have been turned in when a servicemember was discharged?

Vandervahn
02-09-2006, 05:07 AM
+1

Its a fact that "inhouse theft" is one of the worst problems for many employers with many low-rank and subsequently indifferent employees. This applies to the military as well. Its not the militaries´fault that they have to resort to paperwork to keep their stuff together, and there is are good reasons why the supply staff keeps a heavy reign on "their stuff" - because without the soldiers would show even less responsibility. Heck, in earlier times soldiers even had to buy their own gear and ammunition! Now someone got caught in the treadmill because one or several people failed to check the right boxes on a documentary sheet. Big deal in a bureaucracy that regulates 1.5 million men and women...

You cannot blame the battalion commander for not signing as long as he does NOT exactly know what happened to the body armour. Because if he did without the knowledge, he could very well face an inquiry for false testament - I wouldnt risk my carreer because someone down the foodchain didnt do his job. Stuff like that can always come back at you.

Granted, this is a stupid situation the 1st Lt. Rebrook found himself in, but things like that happen. Especially as an officer he should know the legal procedures and could have cared for the issue earlier. The only real failure in this process is that there is no military institution that is responsible for clearing up such failures.

I am definately not saying that this is OK by any means, but one has to see such events in proportion.